#Bitcoin is by far the most decentralized cryptocurrency, and it’s the only currency that can plausibly be said to be politically stateless...No other cryptocurrency can claim this, and it’s possible that no other currency ever will.
by @hosseebhttps://t.co/hEdhDoRKcV

RT @nlw: 16/ One the absolutely most fascinating pieces of the week came from @hosseeb, who asked “Why isn’t Bitcoin banned everywhere?” Ultimately exploring whether Bitcoin is not, in fact, actually a threat to sovereigns. The definition of a Sunday Long Read. https://t.co/ZSxZZZT0uN

RT @hosseeb: #Bitcoin was supposed to be the enemy of governments, it was supposed to create a parallel, uncensorable economy.
If that's true, then why have most governments ushered Bitcoin through the front door?
This blog post is my attempt at an answer.
https://t.co/KNzEJQh2Ll

RT @hosseeb: #Bitcoin was supposed to be the enemy of governments, it was supposed to create a parallel, uncensorable economy.
If that's true, then why have most governments ushered Bitcoin through the front door?
This blog post is my attempt at an answer.
https://t.co/KNzEJQh2Ll

Potentially unpopular opinion: cryptocurrencies haven't been widely banned because they aren't actually all that impactful. The things you can do with crypto that governments don't like (harder to trace transactions, circumvention of asset transfer laws, etc.) have always been possible. If the government wanted to stop criminal transactions, banning cash would be way more impactful than banning Bitcoin. Furthermore, the decentralized nature of a lot of cryptocurrencies is not a good thing for a real currency. Being able to manage the money supply and enforce monetary policy is important. While some governments go bonkers and cause hyperinflation, most do a good job of managing the stability of their currency.

The author's latter explanation, that governments don't really care, is the most compelling. The only ones that do are ones that enforce onerous asset transfer laws (e.g. PRC).